Hooper planners approve oversized accessory structure for Sam Howard, require easement or relocation

The Hooper Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for Sam Howard to build an 1,800-square-foot accessory structure at 5910 South 6300 West, on the condition that Howard either obtain easement-vacation letters from affected utilities or move or shorten the building to meet setback requirements.

The structure as proposed exceeds the size permitted in the R-2 zone by 200 square feet, and staff noted the site plan places the building within a public utility easement that requires a 10-foot rear setback; the plan shows a 5-foot rear setback. A city planning staff member told the commission the applicant is pursuing the city’s easement-vacation process, which in past cases has included an application fee and a public hearing.

Why it matters: Approvals that rely on easement vacations can require additional administrative steps and third-party signoffs from utilities. Planning staff described the situation as a staff error in the initial review and said the permit could be issued once one of two conditions is met: the applicant moves the building at least 5 feet away from the easement so it meets the required setback, or the city completes the prescribed easement-vacation process and utilities provide the necessary paperwork.

City planning staff described the use as hobby woodwork and storage, with plumbing and electricity planned but no commercial use. The staff recommendation was for approval with the condition that the applicant meet either of the two alternatives before permit issuance. The staff member said, “This was a staff error, and the staff, including ... public works, was really comfortable with the approval of the conditional use permit with 1 of 2 conditions,” and noted staff would follow the city’s established process for easement vacation if the applicant chooses that route.

Applicant Sam Howard told the commission he would prefer to move the building rather than pursue the easement vacation, citing completed engineering drawings and an existing construction contract. Howard said, “we would probably just rather move it instead because we've already got the engineer drawings done and ... a contract locked in.” The commission and staff discussed whether the structure could be shortened or moved to avoid the easement requirement; Howard said he could move it if necessary.

The commission opened a public hearing on the conditional use permit; no public comments were made. Commissioner Severing moved to approve the conditional use permit on the condition that Howard either obtain vacated-easement letters from affected entities or move/shorten the building to fall outside the easement; Commissioner Whittison seconded. The motion passed.

Next steps: The applicant must satisfy one of the two conditions before the permit is issued. Staff said the easement-vacation process has been used in prior years and may include an application fee and a public hearing; the record did not state a definitive fee amount. The commission did not set any additional conditions beyond those noted in the motion.